I think you need both. I do think the trend to more emotional music has clear draw backs. All about feeling and nothing about an active faith that does. Hymns definitely have that going for them. We still do hymns but you won't find all of our songs hymns.

debra

I don't even go to "worship center" (even the name has changed with the times) because the people do nothing but sit there while the "praise team" sings that contemporary hillsong stuff and the minister talks about how to know what your kids do on the computer". God has left.

I remember back when worship involved the congregation with hymns and prayer. This contemporary worship is something I can get on my computer. I stay home. If I ever stumble across a real church, I will go, but it isn't going to happen.

It may be "move with the times" yet they say God's word is timeless. Contradiction to me.

It isn't worship when only the band and such participate to an audience. And I disliked that most. A band, drums and cymbals and all the loud over expensive sound systems.

blituri

Contemporary songs are more "instrumental" focused and the "audience" is not supposed to interfere with the performers: that the purpose driven performance.

But, then, you do know that there are two ROADS in the Bible and the sacrificial system imposed but not commanded the noise was to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter." But they had been sentenced to return to "beyond Babylon." Music is called "sacred violence" because it intends to silence the voice of the victim: works pretty well in my left-behind experience.

The Qahal, synagogue or Church in the wilderness was ordained for the Holy Convocation which for the "civillians" was each rest day: rest never means worship.

That was inclusive of Rest, reading and rehearsing the Word of God: what a disciple does.It was exclusive of "vocal or instrumental rejoicing" because that is what a disciple NEVER does unless he wants to make the lambs dumb before the slaughter.

The synagogue for the civillians continued throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament: it had no preaching, singing or collection plates except for the "poor box" (for the poor.)

That was exampled by Jesus and commanded in most of Paul's epistles and by Peter. It was practiced by the historical Church of Christ until the year 373 when singing as an ACT was imposed by a Syriac bishop. That split the east church from the west and that continues.

There is no "music" concept in the New Testament other than the prodigal son and musid defacto demands dancing. And in Revelation 18 where the Muses (code word = Locusts) along with the instrument players and craftsmen are called "sorcerers" who HAD deceived the whole world.

Recorded on clay tablets is the proof that by making "notey" sounds with pipes or brass (serpent) one could exercise powerful control over others. That is confirmed by modern medical science which knows that music causes the body to create endorphins which in turn creates the impulses of Fight, Flight or a sexual feeling. Furthermore, most of us have damaged hearing even by congregational singing where hundreds of people WORK HARD to make the complex harmony which includes the "dog barks" and "water drips" which drives you mad even when you think you are getting PLEASURED (what Paul outlawed in Romans 15)

So, music, like all drugs, is highly addictive and the DOSE always calls for more and louder.

So, the "preference" thingy is what Paul outlawed in Romans 14 as "doubtful disputations" which the Diet Sects engaged in in the marketplaces. Then, you can use one mind and one mouth to speak "that which is written" and "written for our learning."

Most if not all musical terms and names of instruments defines "enchantment" or "sorcery."

No one ever needed or tried to justify "music" from the Bible until the Disciples in 1878 but not even their scholars agreed. The Psallo word means to PLUCK with your fingers but NEVER with a plectrum: no picks, no flutes, not cymbals, drums are even permitted by psallo which is THE sole justification for instruments. History notes that deep financial waters prompted the first Black Methodists instruments and an elder told J.W.McGarvey that they would not make it without music.

Sad: if you can't define ekklesia or synagogue can you belong to one?

Logged

debra

I grew up in church back when they played a piano and someone led the congregation in singing. Now, many years later, when I decided to find God and went to church, I discover a show. A performance. I don't mind that they have music. I cannot stand that band, ear splitting sound system, cymbals and drums, as they bang away at "christian rock" music. I cannot stand it so I quit going.

That wasn't worship, for me. They aren't going to stop doing it for me, and I am never going to be able to endure that ear splitting rock concert. It is clearly intended to please the young crowd, and seeing them dancing to that is just not for me.

One church I tried has two services, but they use the band rock in the first, and an orchestra in the second, which at least felt more dignified. But it was still a performance that left me out of it. I can get every single thing they have, at home. I listen to their sermons on their site podcast.

I don't know when all this change happened, but it is not my idea of worship, so I stay home. They aren't losing any sleep over that.

Logged

blituri

The plan was to make individuals into disciples: the task is to teach and learn what Christ taught in the prophets and the prophecies made perfect. Peter outlawed "private interpretation" meaning further expounding. Paul defined "corrupting the Word" as "selling learning at retail" or just being a huckster.

The Restoration Movement "restored" by casting off the clergy. However, the clergy, universities and religious publishing companies have infiltrated and diverted the church so that it is not an ekklesia which is a School (only) of the Word (only). It has no other role and the only "worship" concept is to give heed to the reading and discussion of the Word. Some manage to do that with instrumental performance, others do it with what they call ACappella which is "after the Pope's castratos" which he found "performed" better than the clergy singers who sang "falsetto" (ccm). All priesthood roles were feminine but they had to be performed by males "performing the role of women." There is no recorded history which says otherwise.

Therefore, we ALL have let the professional performers take over from we "pharisees and hypocrites." What they manage to do is hide the fact that Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees (professional clergy) hypocrites by naming speakers, singers and instrument players especially in Ezekiel 33.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast HID these things from the WISE and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Plut. Crass. 23 But when they were near the Romans and the signal was raised by their commander, first of all they filled the plain with the sound of a deep and terrifying roar. [7] For the Parthians do not incite themselves to battle with horns or trumpets, but they have hollow drums of distended hide, covered with bronze bells, and on these they beat all at once in many quarters, and the instruments give forth a low and dismal tone, a blend of wild beast's roar and harsh thunder peal. They had rightly judged that, of all the senses, hearing is the one most apt to confound the soul, soonest rouses its emotions, and most effectively unseats the judgment.

That is why religious music was always called sorcery (Rev 18) or witchcraft who are on the burn list. The marks of sight and sound of God driving His enemies into "hell" is the wind, string and percussion instruments even the Jews used to burn infants.

Aren't the Psalms a collection of "songs" with some having instructions on how to "pluck" the notes that should accompany the recitation?

The traditional response from the non-instrumental position to that question is that the Psalms, being written under Old Testament law before the cross, are not authoritative to authorize anything in New Testament worship.

Aren't the Psalms a collection of "songs" with some having instructions on how to "pluck" the notes that should accompany the recitation?

The traditional response from the non-instrumental position to that question is that the Psalms, being written under Old Testament law before the cross, are not authoritative to authorize anything in New Testament worship.

Even though I am a non-instrumentalist the way I look at the "psalms are in the OT" argument is that on the day before Pentecost the soon to be Christians were still Jews. At the end of the day on Pentecost a bunch of them were Christians. Is it logical to think that they all suddenly said "Whoa, now that I am a Christian I have to put aside my harp and tambourine, start eating ham sandwiches, go golfing on Saturday and sing in four part harmony"? No. They retained some aspects of the Jewishness including how they sang psalms. Same God. Same words. So why not same way of singing?

John MacArthur has a great chapter in his book about the failings of modern Christian music.

I enjoy contemporary worship but it is never as deep and spiritual (in my opinion) as a service filled with hymns.

Am I an old fogie at age 37?

Some thoughts from a 22 year old

1. It's HARD to make generalities. What we tend to think of as "hymns" are, in fact, CLASSICS - contemporary songs of the past that "survived" and became widely embraced. It's hard to know what songs of the past 10 years or so will eventually become traditional Christian songs, ie Classics. I have some ideas: Above All, etc.

2. I grew up in the church and so I grew up with classic hymns. And my spirituality is - to some extent - intertwined and expressed by them, thus they have "value" to me. INTERESTINGLY, some of these are a part of Contemporary worship, too, since life-long Christians like me are "connected" to these songs. Amazing Grace, Beautiful Savior, Come Thou Fount, Crown Him with Many Crowns, Great is Thy Faithfulness, Rock of Ages, What a Friend, and of course, a whole bunch of Christmas carols. There are "contemporary songs" now classics: Lift High the Cross, Sent Forth for example.

3. I like several of the newer, "contermporary" songs, as well. I realize - many are theologically very shallow and often very ME oriented - "I this" and "I that" (signs of the times - such is generally SADLY true in contemporary Christianity) - but then MANY old hymns are aweful, too (but then, most of them have simply dropped out of use). "In the Garden" and some others come to mind. There's nothing NEW about weak or bad lyrics.

4. I think what often appeals to people is not the words but the tunes and styles. For those that grew up with hymns, organs and choirs (and thus, whose spiritually "connects" to that) or just those that grew up with traditional musics (maybe taking piano lessons), the "traditional" stuff is often well embraced. For those that grew up with pop, rock and country music, the more contemporary things just seem more interesting, more engaging, and more "them." I like the RARE times artists take GOOD hymns and re-work them in a contemporary style.

5. Music is just a POWERFUL, POWERFUL spiritual tool. Luther is often quoted as noting that he "coveted" the church musician (which he, of course, was). I don't remember the exact quote but it's something like, "When I preach - the message is heard once and quickly forgotten. When we sing - the message is repeated to ourselves over and over and never forgotten." My pastor once served as a hospital chaplain and commented one time that he often used hymns when ministering to patients, he was amazed how often people would remember maybe some Sunday School song they learned 60-70 years ago, and now found in it great comfort.

John MacArthur has a great chapter in his book about the failings of modern Christian music.

I enjoy contemporary worship but it is never as deep and spiritual (in my opinion) as a service filled with hymns.

Am I an old fogie at age 37?

I don't know, but I hear the same expressed quite often (including from myself ) Our congregation sings a mix of old and new. I think at our small group study last night we sang songs from 1747 - 2000, all at the request of people no older than 38.

If you are in a group of young folk with limited vocal range and limited exposure to good hymns then it might be better to sing the modern, fluffy praise songs. But in a group of big people who can read music, sing parts, have experienced life, who understand farming references (sheaves, reapers, harvest) and who prefer Linda Ronstadt to Lady Gaga, HYMNS are the way to go.

God is so good, God is so good, God is so good, he's so good to me

doesn't hold a candle to

My sin, Oh the bliss of this glorious tho't, My sin not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more: Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.

So why does our less than 100 member congregation sound like 250 when we sing hymns and like 13 when we sing contemporary?

Is familiarity the only factor?

hmmm

I have found that to be so true in more than a few churches over the last several years. Even more telling, I am convinced, is that if you turned off the sound system with the "worship team" being blasted out at 200+DB, it wouldn't even sound like 13.

One of the problems that I see with the contemporary singing is that there is no music to follow. Even though most of us are not musicians, most can still "read music" well enough to know how to follow the tune. When the musical score is not shown, no one really knows what to do unless the song is very well known. Most don't even know when to begin the line. Half of the congregation that do actually try to sing manage to pick it up half way through the line. I have seen even good song leaders have difficulty in this.

The simple fact is that most contemporary songs, while perfectly well suited to special presentations by soloists or groups, are simply not well suited to congregational participation. Most of the "old hymns" have a cadence to them which assists in congregational participation.

Aside from all that, there are not many contemporary songs that I would ever bother to read (sans music). There just isn't much meat to most of them. They follow the style of most contemporary songs out there in public. The words only provide a mechanism to get the voice of the singer involved in the musical presentation and really rather shallow of thought. Many of the old hymns, on the other hand, are in fact very good poetic verse containing in many cases sound theological messages.

I am over 50 and I dont miss hymns AT ALL, with a about 6 exceptions. I was bought up on old hymns, sung them at church and school over and over, and now I am very happy to be in a church that sings praise and worship songs that are meaningful and where I can actually worship God. Most of the old hymns were boring, meaningless and dreary(in my opinion). Probably great for the time they were written for, but not for now.

John MacArthur has a great chapter in his book about the failings of modern Christian music.

I enjoy contemporary worship but it is never as deep and spiritual (in my opinion) as a service filled with hymns.

Am I an old fogie at age 37?

Some thoughts from a 22 year old

1. It's HARD to make generalities. What we tend to think of as "hymns" are, in fact, CLASSICS - contemporary songs of the past that "survived" and became widely embraced. It's hard to know what songs of the past 10 years or so will eventually become traditional Christian songs, ie Classics. I have some ideas: Above All, etc.

2. I grew up in the church and so I grew up with classic hymns. And my spirituality is - to some extent - intertwined and expressed by them, thus they have "value" to me. INTERESTINGLY, some of these are a part of Contemporary worship, too, since life-long Christians like me are "connected" to these songs. Amazing Grace, Beautiful Savior, Come Thou Fount, Crown Him with Many Crowns, Great is Thy Faithfulness, Rock of Ages, What a Friend, and of course, a whole bunch of Christmas carols. There are "contemporary songs" now classics: Lift High the Cross, Sent Forth for example.

3. I like several of the newer, "contermporary" songs, as well. I realize - many are theologically very shallow and often very ME oriented - "I this" and "I that" (signs of the times - such is generally SADLY true in contemporary Christianity) - but then MANY old hymns are aweful, too (but then, most of them have simply dropped out of use). "In the Garden" and some others come to mind. There's nothing NEW about weak or bad lyrics.

4. I think what often appeals to people is not the words but the tunes and styles. For those that grew up with hymns, organs and choirs (and thus, whose spiritually "connects" to that) or just those that grew up with traditional musics (maybe taking piano lessons), the "traditional" stuff is often well embraced. For those that grew up with pop, rock and country music, the more contemporary things just seem more interesting, more engaging, and more "them." I like the RARE times artists take GOOD hymns and re-work them in a contemporary style.

5. Music is just a POWERFUL, POWERFUL spiritual tool. Luther is often quoted as noting that he "coveted" the church musician (which he, of course, was). I don't remember the exact quote but it's something like, "When I preach - the message is heard once and quickly forgotten. When we sing - the message is repeated to ourselves over and over and never forgotten." My pastor once served as a hospital chaplain and commented one time that he often used hymns when ministering to patients, he was amazed how often people would remember maybe some Sunday School song they learned 60-70 years ago, and now found in it great comfort.

In ALL music, Soli Deo Gloria!

Pax

- Josiah

.

Thank you. I could not agree more.

To me, the Hymns vs. CCM debate is a lot like the KJV vs. NIV debate. It really comes down to which helps you more as an individual. "God is so Good" may not mean as much as "It is Well" to you, but I know more than one brother and sister to whom it means a lot more. The problem is not the type of songs used. The problem is the attitudes of the Christians singing them.

BTW, Frank Sinatra means a lot more to today's generation because of Michael Buble.

The plan was to make individuals into disciples: the task is to teach and learn what Christ taught in the prophets and the prophecies made perfect. Peter outlawed "private interpretation" meaning further expounding. Paul defined "corrupting the Word" as "selling learning at retail" or just being a huckster.

The Restoration Movement "restored" by casting off the clergy. However, the clergy, universities and religious publishing companies have infiltrated and diverted the church so that it is not an ekklesia which is a School (only) of the Word (only). It has no other role and the only "worship" concept is to give heed to the reading and discussion of the Word. Some manage to do that with instrumental performance, others do it with what they call ACappella which is "after the Pope's castratos" which he found "performed" better than the clergy singers who sang "falsetto" (ccm). All priesthood roles were feminine but they had to be performed by males "performing the role of women." There is no recorded history which says otherwise.

Therefore, we ALL have let the professional performers take over from we "pharisees and hypocrites." What they manage to do is hide the fact that Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees (professional clergy) hypocrites by naming speakers, singers and instrument players especially in Ezekiel 33.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast HID these things from the WISE and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Plut. Crass. 23 But when they were near the Romans and the signal was raised by their commander, first of all they filled the plain with the sound of a deep and terrifying roar. [7] For the Parthians do not incite themselves to battle with horns or trumpets, but they have hollow drums of distended hide, covered with bronze bells, and on these they beat all at once in many quarters, and the instruments give forth a low and dismal tone, a blend of wild beast's roar and harsh thunder peal. They had rightly judged that, of all the senses, hearing is the one most apt to confound the soul, soonest rouses its emotions, and most effectively unseats the judgment.

That is why religious music was always called sorcery (Rev 18) or witchcraft who are on the burn list. The marks of sight and sound of God driving His enemies into "hell" is the wind, string and percussion instruments even the Jews used to burn infants.

I don't believe that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Contemporary music and hymns are acceptable to God as long as the message is not one that leads us away from Christ at the center of our worship. I do agree that some congregations have robbed the church of great blessings in eliminating the older hymns. Christ has no starting or expiration date so worship music written hundreds of years ago is still worship music.

I left a large ICC a few years back after joining with the Audio/Visual team. I could have consumed a gallon of antacid during each service. The preacher had to have his sermon scripted days in advance so we could "rehearse" the service during the week prior. I had his sermon in front of me along with ques as to when to turn on a specific light, or drop a background or start a video presentation. This was not for me. When a worship service becomes this orchestrated and so programmed it's no longer a true worship service; it's just a presentation and the Holy Spirit is left on the sidelines.